Ex-communist Europe

Slovakia

A neo-Nazi wins

THE convincing victory of Marián Kotleba (pictured), a 36-year-old Slovak who became notorious for his praise of the Slovak collaborationist government during the second world war, in a regional governor race has shocked even the most prescient observers.

Mr Kotleba came a clear first in central Slovakia’s Banska Bystrica region. In a runoff on November 24th and 25th he took 56% of the vote, defeating the incumbent Vladimír Maňka, who doubles as a member of the European Parliament for Smer, the party of Robert Fico, the prime minister. “It is a surprise to me in Bratislava, but the people I know that live in the region kept telling me he might win,” says Pavol Baboš, a political scientist at Comenius University.

Once fond of wearing uniforms in the 1930s and 40s fascist style, Mr Kotleba has since softened his image just enough to widen his appeal. He used to openly and loudly praise the Slovak Nazi puppet state; now he focuses on a topic more in the mainstream: a dislike of the country’s socially isolated Roma minority. He has referred to the Roma, of whom there are up to half a million in a country of just over 5.5m, as “parasites”. And he used to be leader of Slovenská Pospolitosť (Slovak Solidarity), a party that was banned by the interior ministry for inciting racial hatred. In Banska Bystrica he ran under the banner of the People Party—Our Slovakia (ĽSNS), of which he is the chairman.

As Mr Kotleba sought to move his own image toward the mainstream, the mainstream has also come closer to him in recent years. Nationalism, often targeting Roma as well as the significant Hungarian minority, has become part of Slovak politics. In Mr Fico’s first government of 2006-10, his party allied with the Slovak National Party and its cartoonish leader Jan Slota, who once promised his party would “get in our tanks and go flatten Budapest”. In capturing an outright parliamentary majority in the 2012 election, the nominally left-wing Smer successfully adopted a watered-down form of nationalism to subsume nationalist voters. Mr Fico himself is not immune to the odd bit of flag-waving rhetoric now and again, including a speech in which he noted that the country had been “established for Slovaks, not for minorities”.

If there is any bright side to Mr Kotleba’s victory, it is that he will end up wielding minimal formal power. Smer controls a majority in the Banska Bystrica regional council, not to mention the governor post in six of Slovakia’s other seven regions. (The business-friendly centre-right controls the Bratislava region.) No mainstream politician appears willing to co-operate with Mr Kotleba. But even this isolation could prove a double-edged sword, perhaps allowing Mr Kotleba to portray himself as a persecuted martyr.

Mr Kotleba’s win was enabled partly by very low turnout of just 17%, as well as the depressed economy of the sparsely populated Banska Bystrica region. Mr Baboš, who studies voter discipline among various parties and social groups, notes that “racist parties are more disciplined”. Still, it would be foolish to ignore larger trends in the country. Heightened race-based political rhetoric has been followed up by action. Since 2008 no fewer than 14 segregation walls have gone up throughout Slovakia, isolating Roma from their neighbours. The United Nations condemned a violent police raid on an informal Roma settlement earlier this year. As Robert Kalinak, the interior minister and Mr Fico’s right-hand man, noted in an interview, such heavy-handed police actions are popular.

The Slovak political establishment is reeling as it tries to come up with a response to Mr Kotleba’s victory. The media are alternately branded as having provided too much or too little coverage of Mr Kotleba’s campaign. Politicians who acknowledged Mr Kotleba are said to have given him legitimacy; others are accused of not being vocal enough in exposing his venal nature. “It was the words of the right wing, which said that the Antichrist, Satan, Hitler, Mussolini, whoever, is better than Smer,” Mr Fico said, seeking to place the blame on his own political opponents.

An editorial by Matúš Kostolný, the editor of the Slovak daily Sme, may have come closest to the truth, noting: “We all have to admit that today we are not able to tackle Marián Kotleba. His success smells neither of the left, nor of the right. It is simply the result of a combination of hatred, helplessness and anger concerning those in power.”

Speaking as a resident (for 5 years) in Slovakia, Mr Kotleba's success has been explained clearly to me by my students. They are all sick of corrupt politicians, and which ever political leaning a voter might have they are confronted by ex-socialists who continue to fill their own pockets at the expense of the tax-payer. As in France with the ever-increasing popularity of Marine Le Pen, voters are turning to politicians who voice what the average voter feels. Kotleba's victory may be shocking but it should be a wake up call to Fico.

Oh well, I'm curious who wrote this biased and partly untrue article. You were paid a lot for writing this garbage, right? Journalists nowadays should really do a proper research before spouting such nonsense on any website.
First of all, Mr Kotleba has never said that ALL of Gypsies were parasites. Just like people of Slovakia, he has nothing against Gypsies who don't avoid having a job, who do not act like "animals" and/or criminals. He uses this word when talking about people who refuse to live like the majority of people in Slovakia; who refuse to pay taxes; who kill innocent people with axes just because they feel like it (!!!); who rob, bully and threaten people who've never done anything bad to them, and the list goes on.
Secondly - he is NOT even a chairman of People party-Our Slovakia.
And thirdly - Smer itself does not control the majority in Banska Bystrica's council.
The sad part is that white people are already being discriminated in their own country, not Gypsies. That's why people there have enough of it all. But I can see on this website are so many "smart" people who have never even been to Slovakia, nor lived there, yet they dare to post such garbage in their comments.

"Those that support those walls will be the same people that will jump up and down about British nationals wanting to rationalise immigration being 'nasty'"

Can you provide evidence (by referring to newspaper articles for instance) that Slovak would-be immigrants to Britain moralised the British "little Englanders" to be let in? Slovak people are not a nation of beggars. They can live very well with Britain outside the EU.

Secondly you seem to lump all those varied Eastern European countries together? Is this not the type of stereotyping that you are reprimanding?

"yet have been subject to abuse committed by Slovaks and others in the region since their arrival around 1000 years ago (roughly 500 years after the Huns)."

What is the evidence for this? Why only the Roma have such problems all over the world? Tell me where they are well integrated and well regarded by the majority population?

"All that this election goes to show is that the former soviet countries were not, and are not, ready to be joined to the west."

Could someone tell me how is what this guy is saying ("all Roma are parasites") differs from what Nigel Farage and now even David Cameron is saying ("immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria are going to abuse our benefits systems" and hence parasites).

One more thing came to my mind. Couple years ago, US and some officials from France and The Netherlands came to east part of Slovakia to teach Slovak officials how to deal with ROMA/Gypsy/ problem. They visited a Roma/Gypsy/ camp in the eastern part of Slovakia. They all got robbed by Roma/Gypsy/. Then they quit and return back to their countries, without giving us any solutions for gypsy issue.

It looks like Slovaks are not able to handle the gypsy issue. France has been having an opportunity to show us how to handle it, but they just "deport" gypsies back to Romania and Bulgaria. Is this the way how Slovak should treat gypsies? France as a western country should show us how to do it? or Am I wrong? Where are we supposed to "deport" them? btw. I would like to remind you that Slovak, Czech, Romanian, Bulgarian gypsies are EU citizens.

I have been to the region that elected this clown. It is poor and under developed. Unfortunately,given the failure of all Slovak governments
to effectively challenge prejudice directed at Roma,local Hungarians,Gays and/or Jews,poverty and underdevelopment only increase the chances of such clowns.What is true for Slovakia is equally true for many of its neighbors,especially Hungary with a fascist party that is number three in the parliament. Misi bacsi Portland,Oregon

Cutters, I'm surprised that you, who has always full mouth of democracy, suddenly don't respect democratic procedures and results. Mr. Kotleba went through all the procedures to be officially be able to candidate in the elections and citizens have chosen him (in the second round). If he had violated any conditions he would surely have been prevented from running in the elections by the authorities.
The question is, of course, why the citizens did it, and obviously it was not an arbitrary choice - probably something weigh on them what previously elected politicians hadn't reasonably solved. Isn't it the same kind of reason why Englanders vote for UKIP?!
And as for Roma - please don't make me remind you how Englanders get along with Roma:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/15/sheffield-page-hall-roma-...
And it really is a question whether it is Mr Kotleba who is worse or Mr. Blunkett:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/13/david-blunkett-roma...

Yet there are records on Blacks, Asians, Irish and even east Europeans, yet you cannot find me one shred of evidence that Roma have a higher record for criminality in the UK?

The fact is there is no evidence, you have nothing but prejudice to back your comments Bogdan, nothing empirical only just hate.

Those are the same "White Britons" that couldn't tell the difference between a New Age Traveller, an Irish Traveller and Gipsy, and yet even they would consider the persecution Roma suffer in eastern Europe as not short of sickening.

The UK where Roma were quite settled and made a nice living from work in rural areas and soothsaying in urban ones. The UK problems with Roma have only really come about with EU mass immigration to the UK.

Yes, I cannot provide numbers. This is not because I have looked hard for them and could not find them but because I didn't have them in the first place.

Anyway, what I know is that whatever they are,"New Age" Travellers, Irish Travellers or Gipsies, wherever they go they are not welcomed by the locals. Probably for good reasons, including increased criminality in the area.

However, the intention of my posts was to mock your criticism of the Eastern Europeans as racist towards the Eastern European Roma.

I can speak better of the situation where I live, Romania. The Roma are not discriminated, they just do not wish to integrate into the mainstream society through education. They seem to like to live at the margin of society, some of them breaking the law, of course. That is all. No Nazism, no apartheid.

To be honest, I take your words easy, because I'm aware of(pressumably right-winged)slovaks like you, always being aggressive, attacking and negating what other people have to say if it's not according to their liking...
and then you start taking my words out of context, and talking off topic because nobody else would listen to your complaints otherwise. I was not whitewashing anyone, I was just explaining what is behind the anti-gypsy mood in that country, and also that that guy did not use a word "parasite" for all gypsies.

Well, If you're blind to the reality in your own country, then it's not my problem, but I just wanted to clear things up, because journalism should be an honest work, especially on a nontabloid website like this, not offering people an article that mocks other countries and/or distorts the truth.

Roma only problems? Huns were raping and pillaging when they first arrived, I am yet to encounter one historic source that has the Roma doing anything similar.

The Roma had probably already been living in the Byzantine Empire, in the area of today’s Greece, before 1200. Thanks to a rising number of accounts about Roma by the settled population from 1400 onwards, their routes within Europe can today be traced quite precisely. In 1450, the Roma had travelled almost the whole of Europe. :http://romafacts.uni-graz.at/index.php/history/early-european-history-first-discrimination/arrival-in-europe

maybe if you took a look at official government documents, you'd be smarter (like, how can anyone base their judgement on a website banner?!).

electoral leader??? didn't you mean "party leader" or something like that? because if yes, then it does not mean "chairman"...I understand you want to pass him as a chairman, because media seem to be naming him one. but he's simply not a chairman, though I suppose I shouldn't be telling you that, because you, as a native slovak, should know better

Firstly the article fails to analyse the reasons behind Kotleba’s victory. Two years ago his party gained about 1% of popular vote in parliamentary election so it would be a mistake to think that the country has all of a sudden become racist. His victory surfed more on the general frustration from politics and economic situation and in a way worked as a protest vote in what is perceived as an unimportant election (nobody really understands the competencies and relevancy of the regions). The Roma were a useful scapegoat in this situation when people in their poverty and frustration turn their anger to the ones that are ironically much poorer than them. This is populist politics at its best. What is interesting is the massive increase in the number of votes cast for Kotleba in the first vs second election round which suggests that his voters are not the disciplined radicals who were convinced by his populism as the article attempts to state but that completely new people were mobilised to vote for him in the second round (two weeks after first). The interesting question in these elections is whether this increase was voters that in the first round voted for what the article calls business-friendly parties and did this in a gesture of spite against the left-wing Smer party that otherwise swept the election or whether it was completely new voters that did not participate in the first round at all as they saw all the “standard political parties” (as they like to call themselves) as corrupt and voted for Kotleba as kind of a problem maker who will disrupt their agreed order of things.

Second observation is from the comments below as well as the general attitude of TE to problems in Eastern Europe. Not only TE keeps this blog to be called “ex-communist Europe” which is derogatory label-making and a “us-and-them” attitude but also it seems that at an encounter of any issue it is really quick to make additional labels linked with Nazism or racism. In any case TE is very eager to come up with labels linked to intolerance and undemocratic powers with regards to Eastern Europe. And then some of the pro-democracy and pro-tolerance commentators below that have a full mouth of vilifying accusations of intolerance against the racist and xenophobic Eastern Europeans want to solve the situation by re-establishing visa controls. The very same people that accuse Eastern Europeans that they are racist if they don’t want to have a Roma settlement as their neighbours would want to establish political barriers to make sure that they will never get them as neighbours (and also not any of these other racist/nazi/communist Eastern Europeans). So much for democratic values and tolerance…

Sorry, could you be more specific about the 'former Soviet countries'? I assume you mean the three Baltic states which were indeed part of the Soviet Union?

I agree that any xenophobic behaviour should be reprimanded but I am also confident that any 'Western' society would exhibit the very same attitudes, were it exposed to large groups of Roma settlements.

I remind you that most 'Western' and 'civilised' European states had strict anti-Gypsy laws in the XIX century and this is one of the reasons why so many Roma people eventually settled in the Eastern parts of the continent.

Cutters, how can you prevent people with nomadic traditions from moving? In French they are called "gens du voyage". These are peoples originally coming from India known as dalits and therefore they quite naturally feel more comfortable in England that is full of their Indian and Pakistani compatriots than in Central and Eastern Europe that does not have migration history and where they quite contrast with living habits of native inhabitants of these lands.

Having said that, I don't think that electing Mr. Kotleba brings any improvements. Quite contrary, it is necessary to decrease tension by both sides admitting the actual situation and their part of the fault and coming with improvements rather than blaming the other side: Roma citizens and Roma activists should clearly admit that the way of living that many Roma communities have is rightfully seen as annoying for their non-Roma neighbours and careless in relation the the country they live in and benefits of which they draw. They should think about how to make their image more positive. On the other hand non-Roma citizens should realize that there are some Roma people who are interested in integrating to wider society and being put into one bag with the troubled ones sabotages their effort and leads to their frustration and apathy. So non-Roma citizens should think how to make the integration easier for those Roma individuals who want to live modern way of live...

That it is practically possible can be seen on the case of the Czech village Obrnice that was awarded prize for integration of Roma by Council of Europe